Essendon's Penalty

[Adelaide Hawk]

Apparently Sheedy's back, that's penalty enough.

 

[jenny61_99]

I was wondering that, but didn't ask because I suddenly got worried that it was something obvious and I would look like an idiot and all. So thanks for launching into the void on behalf of all the idiots.

I'm on a roll this morning, didn't know who the premier of Victoria was either.

 

[Reality rules]

Ah. Yes

A goose or male or both?

 

[Proper Gander]

I'm on a roll this morning, didn't know who the premier of Victoria was either.

I do ... But I have to screw up my eyes and say um for about twenty seconds before i get there. It's Ron Barassi

 

[Reality rules]

I'm on a roll this morning.[/B]

Hmmmm 6" or 12"?

 

[Reality rules]

what is st tropez?

French restort

 

[Proper Gander]

A goose or male or both?

Neither. I'm a sophisticated software trolling program compiled of commonly used HTB terms and phrases. It's why I keep switching positions on most issues and why yaco and mixmaster keep yelling at me that I took their post out of context.

Context is cutting edge stuff under development in Scandinavia - I managed to hack the early experimental work, but it has a way to go before safe for consumption. Bringing us neatly to AOD

 

[Reality rules]

Neither. I'm a sophisticated software trolling program compiled of commonly used HTB terms and phrases. It's why I keep switching positions on most issues and why yaco and mixmaster keep yelling at me that I took their post out of context.

Context is cutting edge stuff under development in Scandinavia - I managed to hack the early experimental work, but it has a way to go before safe for consumption. Bringing us neatly to AOD

Thank god that's clarified!

 

[Baldur]

i bet the 1 point winn you had a while ago is still your fav though

You would lose your bet

2004 Round 10 St Kilda 31/10 196 Carlton 13/10 88

 

[Proper Gander]

French restort

Restort?

Sokhed to be stiting heere.

 

[LoungeLizard]

You would lose your bet

2004 Round 10 St Kilda 31/10 196 Carlton 13/10 88

Gehrig kicked 9 and Milne kicked 6
I would still takes Breen's point over both of them, well maybe being a Pies supporter i wouldn't

 

[BlueWorld]

So what - I expect EFC to obtain a draft selection commensurate with their finishing position on the AFL ladder.

Even if their position is a direct result of players banned for a period of time for doping?

 

[BlueWorld]

I'm sure they won't. This thread is pretty much for those who would like to see additional, club based penalties to indulge their fantasies. I wasn't entirely happy with the first lot, but that's it from the AFL. Essendon wouldn't have agreed those penalties without assurance that they were final, and there was more than 1 QC present. I see legal action if the AFL even attempt further penalties for the supplements matter.

Mind you, if EFC have done something new that we don't know about - salary cap breaches, match fixing etc. all bets off.

The AFL can continue to punish them in many ways- bad draws, no Friday nights, no anzac day....

 

[jenny61_99]

I do ... But I have to screw up my eyes and say um for about twenty seconds before i get there. It's Ron Barassi

You bloody LIVE there... you got no excuse!

 

[jenny61_99]

French restort

And you have a go at ME for something!

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Oh Albert.

I can live with ( the only person ever). twice done for taking the game into disrepute. But I just pray no one dies

You know, if such a charge existed, then I'm sure the Romans would have charged Jesus with bringing the empire into disrepute many times. He probably also overlooked the keeping of any records or invoices pertaining to exactly how many fishes or loaves he actually had, so same-same. Learn from the past, people.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

ahhh Ive seen another GWS supporter post this before. Interesting.

There is a massive leap between some papers with little info on dosage, methods ect, and what may have happened at Essendon. Many things are carcinogenic at certain levels and harmless below, sunlight included.

Phew, and there I was worrying about the future health of those Essendon players. I guess if Essendon fans keep saying there's no risk at all, then I can stop fretting.

 

[Clems Knee]

I'm sure they won't. This thread is pretty much for those who would like to see additional, club based penalties to indulge their fantasies. I wasn't entirely happy with the first lot, but that's it from the AFL. Essendon wouldn't have agreed those penalties without assurance that they were final, and there was more than 1 QC present. I see legal action if the AFL even attempt further penalties for the supplements matter.

Mind you, if EFC have done something new that we don't know about - salary cap breaches, match fixing etc. all bets off.

So you are basing your assumption that there will be no further charges against Essendon on the supposition that Essendon lawyers would have been competent enough to make an iron clad assurance?
Where do you have evidence to back this supposition? So far, they have shown themselves to be good at one thing only; spending Essendon fans' money for no return.
As others have said, Little was clear: the penalties were NOT for performance enhancing drug use. There is no double jeopardy in operation in here. Hird has not copped his whack yet, and nor has the Essendon FC. And if there is a not guilty finding, the penalties that have already applied will still stand.
If there is a guilty finding, the WADA code would suggest that club sanctions are necessary, although it will be at the AFLs discretion; though I can't see them ignoring the WADA code now.
At the very least, it should be draft sanctions so Essendon don't get the benefit of the wooden spoon. More likely, the AFL will also ask for a clean out of the board and coaching personnel, with the backing of the remaining 17 clubs.

 

[KM00]

A few of you are saying that the AFL signed off on further punishment for Essendon after they were fined and kicked out of the finals in 2013.

Is this a gut feeling, or do you have evidence for this?

And are the agreements between the AFL and Essendon worth anything, especially considering Demetriou's reaction to news of Hird's fully paid gap year: ie agreement not honoured?

I said it - and no source or info - just gut feel /opinion

and yeah, there is a good chance that the AFL might try and wriggle out of it by saying Essendon didnt comply. Still - the AFL dont seem to really want to punish Essendon so they probably wont do much if the players got banned.

 

[DapperJong]

Phew, and there I was worrying about the future health of those Essendon players. I guess if Essendon fans keep saying there's no risk at all, then I can stop fretting.

so noble

 

[GeorgeMullins]

Let's go on the assumption that the 34 players are found guilty of taking a PED and not concern ourselves with their penalty for the moment.

If the 34 are found guilty it will be proof that essendon ran a PED program period and although some will argue they are set up most will not believe that.

As essendon have only be penalised for governance issues should their be another round of penalties now a drug program has been proven?

This is not focused at individuals like hird but the club in general.

What do people believe would be appropriate penalties??

I would like to see them suspended from the competition for the same amount of time as the players ie 12 months or 2 years (we are working on the assumption they at being suspended). Although this not going to happen as the AFL is a business not a sporting body, the afl could hand back some cash from the future fund to make this happen.

What are the alternatives:
1.nothing they have suffered enough
2. Massive fine
3. Lose of draft picks
4. Removal of prime games like Anzac Day
5. Play for no points whilst players suspended
6. Have a mini afl take over with them appointing the board members and the CEO to confirm governance is correct before handing it back (a little like Melbourne at the moment)

Whilst I see penalties above that would fit the level of offending, I don't see ones that the AFL would be prepared to issue as they are worried about there back pockets or ones that essendon would accept without a fight.

Although essendon acceptable of the penalty should be the last concern for the afl when considering if they should be penalised for their actions

Admittedly, I have been following the Bombers since the days of Kevin Sheedy as coach in the early eighties, and I do believe that there should be a penalty - I say this knowing full well that there are some who are for the black with red sash who may take me for an idiot, however, I tend to believe that the fifth penalty - playing for no points while players are suspended - is the only choice that makes sense to me.

I say this in all due respect for the side from Windy Hill, and yet I look forward to the final ruling when it comes down.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

heard a number of clever medical physicists who are fairly convinced by the data. Consider this bit: Background radiation levels vary from place to place depending on many factors such as altitude. States in the USA with higher natural background radiation levels also tend to have the lowest incidence of cancer, and states with low levels also have higher cancer rates.

Worked out okay for this guy.

 

[CD Xbow]

ahhh Ive seen another GWS supporter post this before. Interesting.

There is a massive leap between some papers with little info on dosage, methods ect, and what may have happened at Essendon. Many things are carcinogenic at certain levels and harmless below, sunlight included.

A disingenuous post. Much like the tobacco lobby or the global warming deniers.

Most of these biological peptides appear fairly safe in terms of starting a cancer, and studies so far haven't yet shown an effect in initiating a tumour. However if you look at tumour promotion many of the agents do promote tumour growth in vitro, including TB4. The problem is we through our lives we constantly develop clones of damaged cells, which given time and promotion may become a cancer. it is going to be decades before we know these things are safe in the long term.

While there is no way any can say one way or another if Joe Mannohs' lymphoma went out of remission because the various growth promoting factors he was given, I believe it is wise to be cautious. I believe it was negligent of Dankenstein to give growth promoting factors to someone with a cancer in remission.

This is the main reason I want The Golden One & Dankenstein hung out to dry as an example to others - don't go there.

 

[Laphroaig]

It's interesting that you believe that Dank went rogue - Which is a common attitude on the HTB - This is why i wonder about any further sanctions seeing that players were duped - It appears to be a contradiction.

My observation is that the more common attitude is that "Dank went rogue" belongs in the same category of propositions as "The cheque's in the mail" and "I promise I'll only put it in a little way."

 

[onemancyclone]

Apparently Sheedy's back, that's penalty enough.

2015 pre match address from Hird: "What's your name? Yeah you. I need more from you this week."

2017 pre match address from Sheeds, when players return from suspension: "What's your name again? Jobe. I need more from you this week tiger. Say, what's your name again? Ah Jobe. I need more from you this week Gary."